Siena Presidential Scholar President Rankings: Are They Biased?

The Siena Research Institute asked 238 presidential scholars to rank each president from 1 (best) to worst (43) in nineteen different categories, plus one overall ranking. A complete list of the rankings is here.

Before peering inside the numbers, let us remind ourselves that the presidential “scholars” Siena polled are academic, intellectual scholars, which are, of course, the best kind of scholars to have. So, with this in mind, who do you think came in worst? No, it wasn’t George W Bush—he was fifth from the bottom—it was Democrat Andrew Johnson, a man who, it must be admitted, would make a strong run for the bottom of many lists.

To the numbers! Here are the median ranks for each presidential character (all Whigs and Federalists and George Washington were classified as Republicans; so was Teddy Roosevelt, who called himself one; Democratic-Republican Jeffersonians were classified as Democrats). Remember: lower is better.

Trait

Democrat

Republican

Party Leadership

12.5

27

Executive Appointments

13.0

28

Domestic Accomplishments

13.0

26

Communication

13.5

28

Imagination

13.5

28

Executive Ability

13.5

27

Overall.Rank

13.5

27

Ability Compromise

14.0

25

Willing.Take.Risks

14.0

27

Court Appointments

14.5

28

Leadership.Ability

14.5

26

Present Overall View

14.5

27

Overall.Ability

15.0

27

Relationship Congress

15.5

27

Handling US Economy

15.5

25

Intelligence

16.0

28

Luck

16.5

24

Background

18.0

25

Avoid Crucial Mistakes

18.5

23

Foreign Policy Accomplishments

19.5

26

Integrity

21.0

22

By some miracle, the Democrats score better rankings for every single trait. Stalwart and trustworthy Democrats even bested Republicans for Integrity: we will call this result Kennedy’s Revenge. Democrats—like most academics—were rated twice as smart as Republicans. Even blind luck favored the party of Obama and Carter! Interestingly, luck only favored long-dead presidents (see below).

How about the bests and worsts? Here they are:

Trait

Best

Worst

Party Leadership

Democrat : F. Roosevelt

Democrat : A. Johnson

Communication

Democrat : F. Roosevelt

Democrat : A. Johnson

Handling US Economy

Democrat : F. Roosevelt

Republican : Hoover

Foreign Policy Accomplishments

Democrat : F. Roosevelt

Democrat : L. Johnson

Overall Rank

Democrat : F. Roosevelt

Democrat : A. Johnson

Background

Democrat : Jefferson

Republican : Harding

Intelligence

Democrat : Jefferson

Republican : Harding

Relationship.Congress

Democrat : L. Johnson

Democrat : A. Johnson

Ability Compromise

Republican : Lincoln

Democrat : A. Johnson

Overall Ability

Republican : Lincoln

Republican : Harding

Domestic Accomplishments

Republican : Lincoln

Democrat : Buchanan

Integrity

Republican : Lincoln

Republican : Nixon

Executive Ability

Republican : Lincoln

Republican : Harding

Present Overall View

Republican : Lincoln

Democrat : Buchanan

Court Appointments

Republican : T. Roosevelt

Democrat : A. Johnson

Willing Take Risks

Republican : T. Roosevelt

Democrat : Buchanan

Imagination

Republican : T. Roosevelt

Republican : Harding

Luck

Republican : Washington

Republican : Hoover

Executive Appointments

Republican : Washington

Republican : Harding

Leadership Ability

Republican : Washington

Democrat : Buchanan

Avoid Crucial Mistakes

Republican : Washington

Republican : Nixon

Few would argue against Lincoln’s and Washington’s top spots; even Teddy Roosevelt’s best qualities are relatively undisputed. But the top spots occupied by Teddy’s cousin are more controversial, especially his handling of the U.S. Economy.

On the negative side, all would say that Nixon didn’t manage to avoid making a crucial mistake, which knocked down his integrity rating some. But, of course, that was because his scandal became known during his time in office. Kennedy’s scandals, for example, the press forgot to report until years after his death, and even then the sad stories were always recalled with a warm chuckle.

What about a time bias? An example of a time bias is when a scholar lets more recent events color his views more strongly than older events. For example, present-day scholars might treat presidents who they voted for less harshly than they would treat long-dead presidents who were of the same party.

In plain English, most professors, by about 8 to 10 to 1, vote for Democrat presidents—all polls agree on this. Further, academics, as is well known, are not friendly towards Republicans. But time cools passions: they hate George W Bush more than Ronald Reagan, and they hate Reagan more than Ford, and so on. Thus, they might rate more recent Republican presidents lower than older Republican presidents.

Is there any evidence for this? You bet. Take a look at these rankings by time (marked by the last year each president served), broke apart by Party. This is the ranking of Handling the U.S. Economy, plotted through time. Somehow, Democrats are improving, yet Republicans are worsening! Even President Obama scores high here, coming in at number 17; four higher than Reagan. Well, that’s what an education can do for you.

The difference between Republicans and Democrats was largest for this trait. Here is a sorting of the disparity in ratings through time. Positive numbers (the scale is arbitrary, based on the difference in the slopes of regression line with time) indicate that Republicans are getting worse and Democrats better through time. That is, high positive numbers indicate scholars are rating more recent Republicans as worse than their Republican predecessors; and they are also rating more recent Democrats (whom they likely voted for) as better than their predecessors.

Trait

Time Difference

Handling US Economy

100.00

Executive Appointments

84.00

Court Appointments

83.00

Imagination

76.00

Intelligence

71.00

Communication

60.00

Domestic Accomplishments

51.00

Overall Ability

48.00

Willing Take Risks

42.00

Integrity

41.00

Ability Compromise

37.00

Leadership Ability

34.00

Present Overall View

34.00

Overall Rank

30.00

Executive Ability

25.00

Foreign Policy Accomplishments

-1.00

Avoid Crucial Mistakes

-5.00

Background

-11.00

Luck

-14.00

Relationship Congress

-23.00

Party Leadership

-47.00

Our scholars think that the more recent Republican presidents are growing worse at Executive and Supreme Court appointments, Imagination, and nearly every other trait. They do not think there is any real difference between Foreign Policy Accomplishments and Avoiding Crucial Mistakes.

But these profs do think Republicans are growing more nefarious: Party Leadership is negative, which means more recent Republicans are higher ranked than older Republicans. More recent Republicans are exerting more control over their parties! Can you say Cheney? Current Republicans are also controlling Congress better. They are also luckier: what else could account for their success but luck?

Related

16 thoughts on “Siena Presidential Scholar President Rankings: Are They Biased?” Leave a comment
›

Very interesting, if no surprise, and not a word about statistical significance! Excellent.

Is there any way of looking at the rankings of Historians by whether they vote D or R? What about the rankings of those who were dumb enough to rate the current President, when surely a “too early to tell” is the appropriate response?

One interesting correlation not mentioned: What about times when the White House and Congress were controlled by different parties? For example, L. Johnson gets top marks for working with Congress. But wasn’t the Congress (where Johnson had been Senate Leader) under Democrat control? The same with F. Roosevelt during the WWII era. In contrast, R. Reagan handled the Democrat controlled Congress during the PATCO strike (and subsequent firings; further R. Reagan also got the T. O’Neill controlled Congress to reduce overall taxes creating the single greatest economic growth period in American History.

I have about as much confidence in the professorial opinions expressed in this survey as I do in the integrities of the College’s governing board and the state office holders of its home state. Not much.

Excellent fodder for posts and discussions; but lousy material upon which to rely. Just another reason to distrust academics.

SeniorD:
Your expectations are way too high. I think this delphi type approach simply captures prejudices and relative ignorance. For example, by definition shouldn’t Presidents who failed to be re-elected automatically drop to the lower end of the list – unless there is some strong counter-argument? Similarly, shouldn’t Presidents whose parties received increased support during mid-term elections receive higher rankings than those who who lost support? Seems to me that your approach of looking for empirical markers of how their contempraries saw them has validity – despite its time-boundedness.

The only good President that you chaps have ever had was Washington G. Even dear old King George III eventually concluded that Washington was a great man. Though I suppose one could make a case for Harding.

Public employees should not be allowed to vote. Acceptance of a government-funded job, pension, or welfare check should trigger automatic rescission of all voting rights for that person and their dependants.

This ranking makes me think of the history professor at my now ex-college and his assessments of FDR. FDR, simply summarized in his opinion, was the most brilliant man of all time. He was smarter than any economist or businessman even though he had no experience in either–proved by his handling of the economy and his approach to taxation during the 1930s. He was a better strategist than any of his generals during World War II, even though he had no experience here either–proved by the North African Campaign. And on and on ad nauseum. The scholars involved in this ranking obviously concur, and probably have no better evidence.

It occurs to me that a view of FDR as “godlike” is an amalgam of personal prejudices and Arthur Schlesinger’s version of FDR. We are not likely to get a realistic view of FDR until Schlesinger is long gone, his books are out of print, and college history professors have to find new material for their courses.

In North Korea one can read newspaper accounts of how Dear Leader visited the Pyongyang Zoo, and saved a group of children from a bear on the loose. I view most of the slobbering over FDR as something similar even if it is a tad more sophisticated–simply substitute “Laissez Faire” for bear.

Hey, I just looked at the table showing worsts and bests, and it is, or would be, hilarious. FDR for handling the economy is best, but Hoover is worst, and amazingly FDR just took programs Hoover had already concocted and put them into action! I guess FDR should be listed under “luck”; but no, here we find Washington — and his lucky winter at Valley Forge of course. How about Lincoln and ability to compromise–wow, think of how many Americans might have died during the Civil War without all that compromise! What a fabulous mess this ranking is.

I apologize to all for getting so worked-up about this ranking, but it brings back memories of the ninnies in PolySci and History during my occasional tours of duty in academia.

Good call, Doug M. My list shows A. Johnson to be a National Union member, which I suppose is Republican, Washington to be a Federalist (is that Republican?), Jefferson to be a Democratic-Republican…what a mess.